Do you remember old films and cartoons where you will see a politician (usually an empty suit) pick up a baby and kiss it? A recent take on that was done in the program Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law. In that episode Phil wound up shaking babies and kissing hands. You have to see it to get the joke.

[If anyone has a video clip of that, let me know and I’ll add it]

But we are in the 21st century and modern day politicians can do the old trick in new ways. Take the ‘proposal’ by Senator Hillary Clinton for example.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so when that young person turns 18, if they have finished high school, they will be able to access it to go to college”

Wow, that sounds great. What a human being, a caring mother. A load of crap. It’s just candy to get votes, and I’ll explain why.

First, who is going to come up with the 20 billion dollars such a program will cost? You will, say hello to new taxes.

Second, what if your child doesn’t want to go to college. Maybe they want to be an artist, truck driver or construction worker. Where does their money go to? Do they just lose it? Where does that extra money go?

Third, when we say every baby, that includes the babies born of illegal aliens (or the silly undocumented workers designation – here’s a clue the document missing is a U.S. birth certificate or green card hence illegal). If the parents are caught and deported, where does that child’s money go? What if the parents leave the country and take the child with them? Do we pay for college in another country? Do we send that cash to the child in another country?

Fourth, what kind of college qualifies? Community college (which is not really college but high school 2.0), vocational colleges?

Fifth, if the average college tuition is $22,218 (private) or $5,836 (public) and we assume 10% annual growth for just 18 years that means (forgive my math it’s been a while) $98,973 and $32,380 respectively. Taking $5,000 for 18 years at 10% (current rates are 4.75%) then Senator Clinton’s generous gift of your money generates $27,936. Now if my math is correct (which I’m sure I will be told if I am not) and interest rates go up to and stay at 10% (not going to happen) there is still a shortfall of $4,444 just for private school.

I know that the growing cost of college probably won’t be what I just stated, but I can equally be assured that interest rates will not be that high or consistent. It is reasonably accurate that under almost every scenario the money saved will still fall short of the average college.

So depending on the college wished for, loans, grants, and part-time work will still be needed. The wonderful cure all of Senator Clinton’s gift of your money will still not be enough. Of course you can imagine that this amount will then be lobbied for an increase to make up the difference. There will also be special interest groups that will want increases for their kids like Latinos, Native Indians, the overweight, anorexics, gays, kids who are colorblind, kids who can’t dance and so forth.

Millions will be spent to make sure the funds are not misspent. Millions more will abuse the system somehow, and yet millions more will go to studies to see if the system is failing or adequate. The amount will be increased, illegal immigrants will complain that they aren’t getting a fair chance and college tuitions will increase proportionate to the Clinton gift and students will complain about it.

Oh and the last reason why this plan will absolutely not work, and why Senator Clinton is using it as a modern day ‘kiss the baby’ is that if it was such a great plan she would have tried to get it passed on the state level and used it as an example of how wonderful a leader she is.

Since this ‘idea’ has more holes and long-term complications than Swiss cheese Senator Clinton never bothered to run with the idea and saved it for a time when she needed more attention in her quest to gain the Presidency. Funny how it came out now, just as every Democrat is looking for a way to avoid the MoveOn.org problem, especially since she wouldn’t want anyone to remember that she voted in favor of what MoveOn did.

Labels: college tuition, election 2008, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton, soundbite politics

I’m so pleased that the New York Daily News has made an editorial piece yesterday, challenging the Presidential candidates to provide answers to several questions that are critical to the future of America. I salute them in their attempt to get clear answers. I applaud the fact that they want to know where the plans are, and who has them. I just want to ask them one question, what took you so long?

When I say that I mean it. I started asking significant and serious questions of the candidates back in December 2006. I highlighted the fact that the comments from the Presidential candidates of both parties were obfuscated with 30 second soundbites and little else.

“There is also the fact that for a majority of the voting public, information and opinions are formed from the various televised soundbites found on news broadcasts whether they are local or on a 24 hour cable channel.”

I surmised that there have been no clear plans on any currently hot or politically significant issue back in the first quarter of this year.

“Yet, in my opinion, less information is known about the views, and in some cases the voting records, of these individuals.”

Only now has the New York Daily News caught on that the public has yet to learn anything that would motivate us to elect the next president of the United State, much less consider their potential for the position.

“Considering the thought that many are gaining their insights on potential candidates from 30 second blurbs, edited and presented to match a political preference of whatever corporation may own the broadcast, this is unacceptable. Even the few debates that are held contain little real information; rather they are extended soundbites that are framed to capture the attention of selected target groups without actually defining exact parameters or plans.”

In the past I felt that it was the fact that I am not as famous as say Mr. Bill O’Reilly, Ms. Michelle Malkin, Mr. Larry King, or Ms. Rosie O’Donnell. I also considered that the staff of the various candidates were too dependant on the televised looks of the candidates to provide answers to serious legitimate question, even when they were asked by a constituent of one of the Senators. But it appears that even the Daily News was rebuffed by some of the candidates.

Why is this the case, that it’s so difficult to get answers from those that wish to guide the nation at this crux point in time. Why is it that after 7 months, only the New York Daily News has been observant enough to notice the failure of the candidates to provide the public details? Why did it take so many months, and several debates, for the news media to mention that such inadequacies exist?

I may not have the massive staff, the fame provided by an organization with decades of existence, or the revenues funded by millions of readers (yet); but I was aware enough to start asking for more than mere soundbites in 2006. I have difficulty understanding how major news media could not come to the same conclusions. Either way the Presidential candidates are obligated to provide more to the public, and the news media are obligated to make sure they do.

I’m glad a challenge has been placed before the candidates, and saddened that some failed to take up this crucible. But until all who wish to be considered can be precise, without relying on the crutch of soundbites and pat answers, the challenges must be demanded regularly. That is the stick, with the carrot being the Presidency. I can think of no better motivation.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Daily News, Larry King, Michelle Malkin, New York City, news media, presidential candidate, Rosie O'Donnell, soundbite politics

OK, I’ve played a bit of hooky. The good weather has gotten to me. But there has been something that has bugged me. The recent Democratic and Republican debates that were broadcast on MSNBC. Did anyone even see them?

My problems with the debates range from execution to interest. The debates were poorly run in my opinion. Far too many stupid questions of little relevance or impact were provided to both political parties. I mean questions like ‘who grew up with a gun in their home?’ is not relevant to whether or not the candidates are for or against gun control. [This question was asked of all the Democratic candidates, answered by a show of hands.] Another choice question that said nothing was ‘what would be your favorite tax to cut?’ [This was given to the Republican candidates.]

Questions like the above are hardly worth the time. Speaking of time, it was poorly managed. There was only 90 minutes for the entire debate, which hardly provides enough time considering the number of candidates. Added to this was the mere 90 seconds to answer a question, unless the question was cherry picked from the internet and then there was merely 30 seconds to answer. Talk about soundbites. There wasn’t enough time given to any candidate to say anything but a tagline answer. That is the candidates that were given an opportunity to answer.

Several times a question that was supposed to be asked to all the candidates was stopped mid-way through the group with a new question asked. Or the current frontrunners were directly selected to answer specific questions with lesser known candidates completely ignored. This was more obviously and painfully shown during the Republican debate. Mr. Romney dominated the airtime, with what I gather as the most questions asked and the most time to answer.

It was a joke. This wasn’t a debate; it was an extended free advertisement for each candidate. The only real question was who could look more presidential. An example is when the Democrats were asked what they would do if America was attacked 2x on the same day. It’s an odd question, why 2x, isn’t once enough? The answers were boilerplate and along party lines. Not one candidate had an answer that was straightforward. I mean what does, ‘I’d evaluate the situation and take action once I knew who was responsible.’ Really what does that mean? Every candidate answered with this response to some degree or wording. Not one said they would retaliate with force, or that they would ensure that the culprits would be chased and brought to justice regardless what rock they might hide under. I was in New York City when the Twin Towers were hit; I know and knew several people there that day. I don’t want the Presidents’ response to an attack on the citizenry to be rounds of talks at the U.N. Timeouts don’t work for children and it definitely won’t have an affect on a terrorist or nation seeking the removal of America.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: cable news, Democratic Party, MSNBC, presidential candidate, Republican Party, soundbite politics

Continued from part 1...

Debates for candidates, even Presidential ones, have been whittled down – presumably to save time – to trite answers on generalized questions. As if a subject like education or the economy or national healthcare or public security can be properly answered in 1-2 minutes. And any public speaking event is carried by few media outlets, and that is generally only carried in part. The net result being that most only get to hear a key phrase or video clip. The soundbite of the actual event. And the public is asked to base decisions on that. Which works well for the youth brought up on a culture of little information and fast delivery.

Of course that is not the best thing for the nation. I think that all would agree, if any party had a plan to successfully end the war in Iraq the majority of Americans would have rallied behind it. Sadly that did not happen in the recent mid-term elections. We were fed ‘There must be a change’ and ‘I will bring you a change’. Neither of which are a plan nor a statement of what will be done. Yet as soundbites they were quite effective. Even now there has only been one plan posed. Whether it is a good plan or not, is not the question. There is no alternative being given. Yet the soundbites ring clear, ‘We need to change.’ [Let me clarify, a plan entails a detailed explanation of goals, with clearly defined resources and actions. ‘We should leave’ is not a plan. We should leave via a gradual reduction of troops over a 6 month period, allowing religious tensions to grow and create a civil war that Iran will back. When all of our troops are gone we will allow Iran to come into the area in force, raise oil prices and set up terrorist groups – that blame us for the chaos resulting from our leaving the country in disarray – that will plan to attack our nation funded by the higher oil prices. Once we are attacked on our soil again we can then nuke the nation in retaliation. That is a plan. It may be bad but it is a plan.]

So the result is that many are using the 30 seconds of information, given by faces that are familiar due to repetition, to base their decisions on. And the next generations of kids are being shown that this is the manner to base their decisions. That is those that are bothering to take the obligation of voting seriously.

I have a problem with this. I have a problem with what I see as soundbite politics. I have a problem with politicians giving one answer in a specific state and an altered, not quite the same meaning, answer in another. I have a problem with politicians avoiding giving a real answer to a serious question because it may take too long. I have a problem with politicians thinking I’m not smart enough to notice the difference.

I’m also scared that this trend will only grow. Fewer people will be involved in electing the President, or any politician and the public will suffer. That is not a democracy, and no one will notice it slip away – well almost no one. But the initial furor over candidates today will be replaced by who is in the finals of some reality show. Don’t be surprised if a debate is scheduled on the same day. It’s your nation too. Don’t let them forget.

For my part I have asked questions. I will continue to do so. I expect answers. And I will call those out that are duplicitous, or so smug to think that everyone is fooled. Regardless of their political party. Copy my letters and send them yourself. Tell me what other questions we should ask. Remind the candidates that they are OBLIGATED to answer our questions and keep their promises if they want our vote.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: mid-term elections, presidential candidate, soundbite politics

Taking a moment to pause, I must say that I am not very hopeful. The reason why may not catch attention at first glance, but my reflection on it says there is much more to be concerned about.

Of course I’m speaking about the 2008 Presidential race. But that is just the surface. There are trends and issues that are more broad and far reaching than just this one event. Of course we all notice that the race for President is starting far sooner than ever before. It’s claimed that the cost to run is so huge that this kind of lead time is needed so that funds can be raised. I have no doubt that this is true. Of course there is another factor in this. America is becoming a MTV educated nation.

I’m not blaming MTV, just using it as an example. We see now that the youth from the last decade or so, up to today, are impatient compounded with short attention spans. This has become so bad that new ‘diseases’ have cropped up [I don’t feel that ADD is real – lest there would have been cases found centuries ago] to try to explain it. I feel that the crush of media has taught kids to not be more patient or thoughtful in part. Cell phones allow instant contact with anyone, text allow the ability to instantly contact multiple people. The internet and IM’s (instant messages) provide instant constant access to like-minded people, information that is both relevant and useless, video of inane acts with the hope of 5 minutes of fame, and the removal of a need to know how to spell (which influences thought in my opinion). Add to this 500 channels of television, each scraping lower for the lowest, cheapest, common denominator to gain a fraction of ratings that are lower than a 30th ranked show in the 70’s. Then throw in the hyper-violent trends in music, music videos (all genres), and sports (fights among teams or against fans) and the future generation looks troubled.

Now take this observation, and put in a political race. Minorities that already are becoming less educated than the generation before them, and feeling besieged by a justice system that is weighted against them, and a law enforcement system that routinely targets them and initiates unjustified unpunished violence upon them. Many minorities feel that politics are of no use as they are not gaining any of the benefits candidates promise to gain their vote. Others just follow the status quo stated by the various media outlets, as if it were a trend or mandatory without any thought to why they have been pre-selected to choice A or B.

Also given the apparent inability to follow a thought long-term, an extended Presidential race will not hold the attention it deserves with those of the youth (any race) that can or will be able to vote. So the race boils down to familiarity and not politics nor issues.

Political parties have caught on to this trend, as has the media. There has been a slow trend growing in the last decade or so, towards less actual content. With the growth of channels Pesidential comments, like the State of the Union, must compete with movies, VOD (video on demand), and regular televised programming. Once upon a time not long ago EVERY channel carried the President when he spoke to the nation.


To be continued...

Labels: presidential election, soundbite politics, State of the Union

I find things quite interesting lately. Recently the new democratic led Congress has been making a lot of noise ahead of President Bush’s new Iraq strategy. Before the President has even announced word one we see that there are calls to defund the soldiers in Iraq. This I feel is insane.

First the President should be allowed to unveil his new plan without the shrieks of doom and prevention that now fill the air. All that this is doing is provide the enemies of the troops with renewed vigor and impetus. This is so wrong to undercut the President and to show a face of America as being confused and cowardly. I don’t see how these calls to cut and run can be seen any other way. But let me not get ahead of myself.

It is interesting to see that the democrats that were elected to change the policy in Iraq are moving on that mandate. I think that if the current cry to run away with out tail between our legs was conveyed to the public in general there would not have been as many elected. I do not feel that when citizens voted for the change that was never defined they expected these kinds of results. But this is what happens when people run on, and vote for, soundbite politics. Ill-defined policies are later realized in a manner that does not reflect the general consensus, and voter can only blame themselves for this.

I for one must say that I do not agree with anyone that states that they support the troops, but actively debate about removing the funding that directly supports the troops and/or additional troops which directly provide manpower support. Unless I miss understand the word, support, to remove or block either item does not provide for or maintain [as defined by thefreedictionary.com] nor keep from weakening or failing the troops in Iraq. So unless the democrats have found a new meaning for the word support, they have lied to the public and engaged in soundbite rhetoric I feel, which I hate.

I do not question that Iraq needs to be addressed in a new manner. There needs to be changes. No one wants to see our soldiers killed. Everyone would prefer to see our sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, and friends home and safe. But that is not how the world is today. Protectionist and Isolationist polices have never worked in the past and they definitely will not work in the future. Wars take time and there is no timetable that can handily let you know when it’s all over. This is not some kind of athletic competition with a rulebook and a clock counting down to when we are done. To act as if this is now overtime is to admit defeat before we have finished what we started. The repercussion of that failure to complete is far longer lasting and far more deadly.

I am reminded of something that my Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams mentioned when in boot camp. As I recall he said, “Your moms want you to be treated nice. They are afraid of you getting hurt. But the fact is the more you sweat the less you will bleed. Moms of America will get you killed. But I’m not going to let that happen. So boys, prepare to get wild crazy and exotic.” It may have been boot camp but I think you get the point.

And if we don’t follow this simple mantra, the troops will not be supported. They will come home to cheers. Cheers from mothers and fathers and friends across the nation. Even louder will be cheers from the militant factions seeking to control Iraq. Cheers from the Al Quida’s and Iran. Cheers from everyone that will fight to fracture the nation into smaller territories controlled by radicals of various temperaments. Then those cheers will turn into tears. Tears from Americans when the winners that hate our nation come to attack us. Tears from the children who have grown up in a war torn country, fed anti-American rants, firmly believing that every drop of food they didn’t get, the electricity they didn’t have, the education they couldn’t received, the family they lost to civil wars, every wrong in their world stemmed from America. That will be all the motivation they need to attack America and its citizens everywhere in the world.

Think I’m bleak? A tad bit over the top? We didn’t win in Korea, and they are still ready to fight us 50 years later – now with nuclear weapons. We lost in Viet Nam, for many of the same reasons we are about to see now I think, and that cost our troops, divided our nation, and left scars across the world. Most Americans had never heard of a Shiite or a Sunni, yet we learned the words after we lost thousands of lives in one day. If you think that not getting Iraq stable, leaving while it’s still weak and troubled, will not be a problem far worse than what we have seen so far, I think you haven’t thought it all through.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: democrat, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, soundbite politics, supporting troops